How are signal % gain calculated? Can they be gamed - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Oops I was editing my post while you were answering me. Yes, I already figured it out. Thanks! Please see my edited version.
The true equity would be 1924.46 (Current Equity + Withdrawals - Deposits) or (Initial Deposit + Profit) and not the 10474.28 (very over inflated) as your calculation shows so the net growth is totally incorrect due to the withdrawals "fudging" the data.
The true balance would be $1.924,46 (Current Equity + Withdrawals - Deposits) and not the $10.474,28 as your calculation shows so the net growth is totally incorrect due to the withdrawals "fudging" the data.
Even if compounding lots is considered, the calculations is incorrect, because on other signals where there are no withdrawals or extra deposits the Growth does not get inflated this way and is correct.
So users, knowing this could be using the withdrawals to actively "fudge" and inflate the metrics compared to other signals that are not using such tactics. It is clearly miscalculated by MetaQuotes.
EDIT: It has always been the premise that Withdrawals and Deposits should not influence the growth calculation, but clearly that is not the case!
EDIT2: These incorrect calculations opens up a door to a great deal of abuse by signal providers!
Even if compounding lots is considered, the calculations is incorrect, because on other signale where there are no withdrawals or extra deposits the Growth does not get inflated this way and is correct.
So users, knowing this could be using the withdrawals to actively "fudge" and inflate the metrics compared to other signals that are not using such tactics. It is clearly miscalculated by MetaQuotes.
EDIT: It has always the premise that Withdrawals and Deposits should not influence the growth calculation, but clearly that is not the case!
I understand. I am just saying that what is incorrect is to always consider compounding lots.
Example.
250 USD to start, end august 396.30 (58.52%). For simplicity let's say the withdrawal was at this time. Let's say it's 96.30 (I didn't check the real amount).
300 USD start September, end september 769.02 USD, 469.02 USD profit (so 156.34% growth).
But your opinion is it should be calculated as (769.02-396.30)/396.30, so 94% and not 156.34%, etc...for next months.
However you can consider the (assumption) of compounding lots : if 0.5 lots was traded with 300 USD capital, compounding lots with 396.30 would have been 0.66, resulting in a profit of 619.11 USD (instead of 469.02) and a growth of...156.22 % (619.11/396.30).
Anyway I agree with you, I am just saying it otherwise (a bit less categorical), compounding of monthly growths is the most optimistic way to calculate it and most probably misleading.
The best option would probably be to provide both calculation.
I understand. I am just saying that what is incorrect is to always consider compounding lots.
Example.
250 USD to start, end august 396.30 (58.52%). For simplicity let's say the withdrawal was at this time. Let's say it's 96.30 (I didn't check the real amount).
300 USD start September, end september 769.02 USD, 469.02 USD profit (so 156.34% growth).
But your opinion is it should be calculated as (769.02-396.30)/396.30, so 94% and not 156.34%, etc...for next months.
However you can consider the (assumption) of compounding lots : if 0.5 lots was traded with 300 USD capital, compounding lots with 396.30 would have been 0.66, resulting in a profit of 619.11 USD (instead of 469.02) and a growth of...156.22 % (619.11/396.30).
Anyway I agree with you, I am just saying it otherwise (a bit less categorical), compounding of monthly growths is the most optimistic way to calculate it and most probably misleading.
The best option would probably be to provide both calculation.
Even though we agree in some manor, I disagree that it just a misinterpretation, because if you remember a previous discussion we had where I called attention to the fact the signal subscribers having their position size adjusted when the signal owners made withdrawals or deposits. So taking that into account, all signal subscribers will also automatically decrease their future "lot sizes" and so compounding lots will NEVER occur. Showing a growth based on "compounding" is completely and totally false and incorrect, especially with the way signals work and also because MetaQuotes has always advertised and pushed the idea that their growth metrics would not be affected by withdrawals and deposits. This is definitely a flaw, a bug, which can be be exploited by more users if not fixed soon. They probably never noticed it because it is not common to see many signals have constant periodic withdrawals such as this own. I certainly never noticed it either until now.
EDIT: Or maybe MetaQuotes did notice and don't say anything because they want to earn more on subscription commissions on inflated signals!
I understand. I am just saying that what is incorrect is to always consider compounding lots.
Example.
250 USD to start, end august 396.30 (58.52%). For simplicity let's say the withdrawal was at this time. Let's say it's 96.30 (I didn't check the real amount).
300 USD start September, end september 769.02 USD, 469.02 USD profit (so 156.34% growth).
But your opinion is it should be calculated as (769.02-396.30)/396.30, so 94% and not 156.34%, etc...for next months.
However you can consider the (assumption) of compounding lots : if 0.5 lots was traded with 300 USD capital, compounding lots with 396.30 would have been 0.66, resulting in a profit of 619.11 USD (instead of 469.02) and a growth of...156.22 % (619.11/396.30).
Anyway I agree with you, I am just saying it otherwise (a bit less categorical), compounding of monthly growths is the most optimistic way to calculate it and most probably misleading.
The best option would probably be to provide both calculation.
Oh My Goodness! I just realized that this is Eleni's own signal and here I am criticizing it with accusations of misuse and "fudging"!!!!
Sorry Eleni, but it was a valid opinion and you are probably not doing it on purpose but it definitely has some dubious consequences associated with the practice!!!
Even though we agree in some manor, I disagree that it just a misinterpretation, because if you remember a previous discussion we had where I called attention to the fact the signal subscribers having their position size adjusted when the signal owners made withdrawals or deposits. So taking that into account, all signal subscribers will also automatically decrease their future "lot sizes" and so compounding lots will NEVER occur. Showing a growth based on "compounding" is completely and totally false and incorrect, especially with the way signals work and also because MetaQuotes has always advertised and pushed the idea that their growth metrics would not be affected by withdrawals and deposits. This is definitely a flaw, a bug, which can be be exploited by more users if not fixed soon. They probably never noticed it because it is not common to see many signals have constant periodic withdrawals such as this own. I certainly never noticed it either until now.
EDIT: Or maybe MetaQuotes did notice and don't say anything because they want to earn more on subscription commissions on inflated signals!
Everyone is ill-disposed except you apparently. Pushing an opinion to it's extreme like you are doing is not a good practice.
Anyway, I give up, it was fun to play with numbers but it is becoming boring.
And please don't take offense, there is not.
Oh My Goodness! I just realized that this is Eleni's own signal and here I am criticizing it with accusations of misuse and "fudging"!!!!
Sorry Eleni, but it was a valid opinion and you are probably not doing it on purpose but it definitely has some dubious consequences associated with the practice!!!
Thank you Fernando and Alain for your input and making it clear how it works, it is an interesting problem with how to fairly show % gain of any signal.
I think a solution would be implementing Absolute gain along with TWR figures such as myfxbook does.
Everyone is ill-disposed except you apparently. Pushing an opinion to it's extreme like you are doing is not a good practice.
Anyway, I give up, it was fun to play with numbers but it is becoming boring.
And please don't take offense, there is not.